Leaderboard

Hmmmmm. I guess my post was poorly worded? My actual intent was more like "is there any reason to think this type of relief will be provided". (In my personal opinion I would think not.) Knowing that many others are more plugged into the political side of our business, I thought that maybe something was in the works that I was unaware of. As a side remark, I have found posts by Luke Bailey to always be thoughtful with exceptional insight. On several occasions I have listed posters whom I believe are people who can be counted on to make posts which are always worth reading. That list has always included Mr. Bill Presson; and Mr. Bailey for that matter. So if you do run across any inside information, please let us know. As I am sure you would do without my 2 cents.

Hello -- and you are not alone! I was glad to see your post/question. We administratively did the same thing, based on whether the plan allowed all sources or limited sources. I asked the same question at an FIS Advanced Pension Conference and was told (I believe by Derrin Watson) that we couldn't have two defaults signed by us as the document sponsor. We need to "pick one" as our default and sign the amendment on the plan's behalf. For the second group, the employer needs to sign the amendment. Obviously, we are not excited about that answer! I'm interested in your "if this, then this" words approach in the amendment as an alternative, and I'm curious to see if others are in the same boat...

CRDs are an option to add at the employer's level. What is so good about CRD is that whether the plan calls it a CRD or not, the participant can self certify it as a CRD and treat it as such. The plan can still be amended to adopt CRD language, but I say why bother?

Terminate the Plan, this will cause his trigging event to allow a distribution

Larry, totally agree that this definition of Employer is terrible, but it does exist. I am moving all of my plans to a new document with the new restatement cycle and that is one of the items I verified before choosing the provider. However, I thought it was still relevant to point out just in case the document did use the terrible definition.

A sole proprietor NEVER terminates. A sole prop is an individual, and until he dies, the sole proprietorship will exist. So the answers to your stated questions: 1) No. 2) No. A RE agent is a sole prop (unless his business is incorporated). Whether he moves from one agency to another OR NOT, he is still the same sole prop. Hopefully you got my message that he never terminates. Even if he stops selling real estate, he is still a sole prop (just not making any money). This is not a facts and circumstances issue. So now, why don't you tell us the real issue; WHY are you asking this? How old is your sole prop? Does he have any employees? Provide as much detail as possible as it will no doubt be important to know.

You can correct under EPCRS by retroactively amending the plan to make them eligible, as long as they are NHCEs.

It's likely going to January 1, 2021 (or 1st payroll after that). But this is an area where further IRS guidance is needed.

Yes. You can use the 2019 5500-SF form since the updated form is not available.